The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

And no offense to those who find such questions to be real. I don't object if people believe there is a theta universe. It's as matter of faith or belief and I don't pretend that we should all agree as to what we each believe. We are each free to have our opinions and beliefs. That's why religion is not science.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Try listening to later Bream and John Williams, both underappreciated in the days when Segovia was still around. Their more mature work is free of the frantic need to compete with the old man. I also used to be fond of Narciso Yepes another younger guitarist of the sixties and seventies.

John Williams is GREAT. Thank you for reminding me.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

John Williams is GREAT. Thank you for reminding me.

He and Julian Bream made a couple of albums as a duet; I've got one of them on CD somewhere.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

What is the average <snip>?

<snip>

giz

I've just snipped out the parts that might make a girl blush.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Maria, thank you so much for having the patience to write out an explanation ( in bold below ) to some one who doesn’t yet seem to have a clue of how horribly off the rails Hubbard went.

giz

I can't speak for Lakey but I know he was in for a LONG TIME so I assume it takes a long time for it all to fade.

If anyone wants to continue to believe, I do understand how hard it is to stop, especially after so much time and money has been invested in a way of viewing the world. Anyone attempting to speed up the fade process can start by avoiding all specialized Scn and Dianetics words. Because if they are used to explain anything it will be impossible for the whole thing to fade. The words are themselves a form of hypnotism. I usually try here on the forum to use English words rather than cult words to explain anything I want to say. I admit it's hard since everyone here can relate to words like Clear or SP or Theta and it's tempting to devolve into using those words.

I was just lucky in that I have been out for 35+ years and had no contact with anyone and all I have left is a tech dictionary, for sh*ts and giggles. So I was lucky and can't walk in anyone's shoes or criticize. I probably only spent around 12K total on Scn in my life. Not that much considering what others put in.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

An Interesting Phenomena between a Spiritual Universe with no time and a Universe of Matter, Energy, Space and Time
Let's say you are a Spirit in a spiritual universe with no time. Let's say that you can project yourself into a MEST universe and view what is going on. While you are in the MEST universe obseving it, time is running in that universe, objects are moving around with respect to each other. You view the MEST universe in action, with objects moving around and time passing then you decide to return to your Spiritual Universe where there is no time.

So far so good, but let's say that you decide to go back to the MEST universe again for another look at it. When you arrive there and occupy your space to view from, you notice that things are different than the last ime you were there. The objects have moved, perhaps colors change, sizes and textures may be different, etc. Well since a spirit is not bound by the laws of time, what happens. A spirit can view and if things changed in any way from his last visit, some time must have past. The Spirit goes back to his Theta Universe of no time but that spirit has now being subjected to the effects of time. Thus some aspect of time must have rubbed off on that Spirit. The Spirit, itself, has changed a bit, now being made aware that change is possible.
Lakey

In essence, local experience of timespace as per Einstein's train book. But then if one were to leave a local timespace it would be evident that what was past in one timespace was future in another, from that absolute viewing positing. Mathematically this absolute position is easily rendered in calculations since the calculations of the various local times can all form in a graph, a distribution of variable timespaces depending on the effect of gravity thus the perception of time. From the absolute position though, I am not sure that the reality of the individual spacetimes would matter. If anything from the absolute position they would appear as illusions? But maybe if after having been in the absolute position and now having to occupy a local spacetime, the perceiver would have 'experienced' change and from an existential standpoint would believe in time.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

In essence, local experience of timespace as per Einstein's train book. But then if one were to leave a local timespace it would be evident that what was past in one timespace was future in another, from that absolute viewing positing. Mathematically this absolute position is easily rendered in calculations since the calculations of the various local times can all form in a graph, a distribution of variable timespaces depending on the effect of gravity thus the perception of time. From the absolute position though, I am not sure that the reality of the individual spacetimes would matter. If anything from the absolute position they would appear as illusions? But maybe if after having been in the absolute position and now having to occupy a local spacetime, the perceiver would have 'experienced' change and from an existential standpoint would believe in time.

This is a really good answer to the question which I posed.

One or two comments however. About things being past in one local timespace and being future in another local timespace. This is possible, but there are limits to how far this can be carried. I am going to quote from my little handbook, "The Relativiy Explosion" by Martin Gardner, "Of course if two events occur simultaneously at the same spot, such as the crashing of two airplanes, it can be said absolutely that that they are simultaneous in all frames of reference. But the greater the distance between the two events, the greater the difficult of deciding about simultaneity.

It is important to understand that this is just not a question of being unable to learn the truth of the matter, there is no truth of the matter. There is no time throughout the universe by which absolute simultaneity can be measured.

Example: Assume that someone in our Galaxy is 10 light years away from Earth on Planet X and tries to communicate with Earth. He sends out a message, which is an electromagnet wave that travels through space with the speed of light so it takes the message 10 years to travel to Earth. Twelve years before an astronomer on Earth receives the message, he wins the Nobel prize. The special theory of relativity permits us to say without qualification that he received the prize before the message was sent from Planet X. Ten minutes after he receives the message he sneezes. Again the special theory of relativity allows us to say without any qualification for all observers in any frame of reference whatsoever that he sneezed after receiving
the message".

There is Confusion Between Past and Present Only DURING the 10 year period when the Message is on its Way to Earth

Gardner continues, "Now suppose that sometime during the ten year period, while the radio message was on its way to the Earth (say 3 years before the message was received), the astronomer fell off his radio telescope and broke a leg. The special theory does not permit us to say without qualification that he broke his leg before or after the sending of the message from Planet X."

Thus, if two local spacetimes are in communication with each other, the distance between them is converted to light years, say 10 light years or any other amount of light years. You take the number of light years which they are apart and eliminate the word "light" and just go with the number of years, so if two planets are 10 light years apart, there is a period of 10 years where on one planet an event my be in the future and on the other planet the same event may be in the past.

So, I agree 100% with Maria's post but just wanted to cite those two limitations. Her concept is valid but it has limits. The limits are the two points I made above. #1 is crashes or things where two events coincide and happen at the same time and same place must be considered simultaneous in all frames of reference and #2 is that their is a time window within which events two accurate observers may disagree on whether an event is in their past or in their future..

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I can't speak for Lakey but I know he was in for a LONG TIME so I assume it takes a long time for it all to fade.

If anyone wants to continue to believe, I do understand how hard it is to stop, especially after so much time and money has been invested in a way of viewing the world. Anyone attempting to speed up the fade process can start by avoiding all specialized Scn and Dianetics words. Because if they are used to explain anything it will be impossible for the whole thing to fade. The words are themselves a form of hypnotism. I usually try here on the forum to use English words rather than cult words to explain anything I want to say. I admit it's hard since everyone here can relate to words like Clear or SP or Theta and it's tempting to devolve into using those words.

I was just lucky in that I have been out for 35+ years and had no contact with anyone and all I have left is a tech dictionary, for sh*ts and giggles. So I was lucky and can't walk in anyone's shoes or criticize. I probably only spent around 12K total on Scn in my life. Not that much considering what others put in.

Thanks for defending me. On the use of Scn words, I am fully weened off of that when I am out in public. I try and minimize the usage of those words here on ESMB but since some of our discussions are about Scientology related topics, it is sometimes nearly impossible to use a standard English word. Once in a while, there is no standard English word for a scn word. That is why I used the term theta universe. Since I was referring to a post by Leon, and where I believed his concept was coming from, it was difficult to say spiritual universe so I almost had to say theta universe. On the term MEST universe, I just used MEST rather than spell out Matter, Energy Space and Time every time I mentioned that particular universe. It is an Acronym even in English not just Scientologese. Now and then, either for convenience or for accuracy, a Scn word must be used. I just don't see anything wrong with doing that on an ex scn message board once in a while when no English word exits which perfectly duplicates the scn word.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This is a really good answer to the question which I posed.

One or two comments however. About things being past in one local timespace and being future in another local timespace. This is possible, but there are limits to how far this can be carried. I am going to quote from my little handbook, "The Relativiy Explosion" by Martin Gardner, "Of course if two events occur simultaneously at the same spot, such as the crashing of two airplanes, it can be said absolutely that that they are simultaneous in all frames of reference. But the greater the distance between the two events, the greater the difficult of deciding about simultaneity.

It is important to understand that this is just not a question of being unable to learn the truth of the matter, there is no truth of the matter. There is no time throughout the universe by which absolute simultaneity can be measured.

Example: Assume that someone in our Galaxy is 10 light years away from Earth on Planet X and tries to communicate with Earth. He sends out a message, which is an electromagnet wave that travels through space with the speed of light so it takes the message 10 years to travel to Earth. Twelve years before an astronomer on Earth receives the message, he wins the Nobel prize. The special theory of relativity permits us to say without qualification that he received the prize before the message was sent from Planet X. Ten minutes after he receives the message he sneezes. Again the special theory of relativity allows us to say without any qualification for all observers in any frame of reference whatsoever that he sneezed after receiving
the message".

There is Confusion Between Past and Present Only DURING the 10 year period when the Message is on its Way to Earth

Gardner continues, "Now suppose that sometime during the ten year period, while the radio message was on its way to the Earth (say 3 years before the message was received), the astronomer fell off his radio telescope and broke a leg. The special theory does not permit us to say without qualification that he broke his leg before or after the sending of the message from Planet X."

Thus, if two local spacetimes are in communication with each other, the distance between them is converted to light years, say 10 light years or any other amount of light years. You take the number of light years which they are apart and eliminate the word "light" and just go with the number of years, so if two planets are 10 light years apart, there is a period of 10 years where on one planet an event my be in the future and on the other planet the same event may be in the past.

So, I agree 100% with Maria's post but just wanted to cite those two limitations. Her concept is valid but it has limits. The limits are the two points I made above. #1 is crashes or things where two events coincide and happen at the same time and same place must be considered simultaneous in all frames of reference and #2 is that their is a time window within which events two accurate observers may disagree on whether an event is in their past or in their future..

Lakey
I have ordered a used 1 cent copy of the book from amazon in order to be able to respond. I am leery of responding if I have a different frame of reference; that is, if I have not read the book you are citing and yet am asked to respond. So expect an answer to this post in about a week, once I can read Gardner's book on relativity. Sorry for the lag! The good news is that the book is on its way. Yes, I could go by my gut and respond. I already was tempted based on a certain line of thinking. But I decided to grant your post more attention. So on this post, see you in a week or so..... and I hope my response is worth it. And I hope Gardner is not over my head. I am not a physicist by any means. I do my best to understand basics while always gravitating to philosophy and literature and art.

I also had to order a new copy of Einstein's train book from 1916 as I had lunch with a friend who was interested in reading it and I gave it to her. Before I finished reading the last two chapters!

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I've just snipped out the parts that might make a girl blush.

Yes. What a slip up that was, Maria! I should not used the word snip. It reminded me of certain practices carried out on males soon after birth. Sorry about that. Talk about a Freudian parapraxis!

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thanks for defending me. On the use of Scn words, I am fully weened off of that when I am out in public. I try and minimize the usage of those words here on ESMB but since some of our discussions are about Scientology related topics, it is sometimes nearly impossible to use a standard English word. Once in a while, there is no standard English word for a scn word. That is why I used the term theta universe. Since I was referring to a post by Leon, and where I believed his concept was coming from, it was difficult to say spiritual universe so I almost had to say theta universe. On the term MEST universe, I just used MEST rather than spell out Matter, Energy Space and Time every time I mentioned that particular universe. It is an Acronym even in English not just Scientologese. Now and then, either for convenience or for accuracy, a Scn word must be used. I just don't see anything wrong with doing that on an ex scn message board once in a while when no English word exits which perfectly duplicates the scn word.
Lakey

A thought only. That other worlds are just worlds. NO need to signal, for me, that one is spiritual and one is material. There could be infinite 'forms' or physics models of 'world' and maybe one of those infinite is spiritual and one of those infinite is material. Also, that there is no rule that says a universe has to be made of those components....On this I was reading Kaku's theoretical thinking on parallel worlds. It's not as if a standard model is a given for such worlds....yet I imagine that some thread holds those worlds together, a common paradigm. Maybe it's just gravity. Maybe it is something else. {Whaaaaa. I don't know!} It is funny to think of it the way we think of people. Give 50 people a bunch of stuff (the SAME stuff), each of them LOOKS different, acts different and arranges their stuff so differently that each of their 'worlds' seems extremely unique. Each of them transforms their stuff and soon it is not the SAME.
Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

See my purple prose. Should we 'discuss' more? I am afraid to suggest we discuss or argue over this....so feel free to 'de-discuss' if you wish. Maybe Atack's next book will be: Why reactive minds do not exist - the ontology of the timeless bank.

I wasn't in any way trying to make a stand for Hubbard. Gizmo had made some suppositions in his post which I felt were sort of scattered around various things which Hubbard actually statedI. I was just trying to clarify things for Gizmo, and anyone who tended to agree with his post, as to what Hubbard was actually referring to

I know you don't agree at all with anything which Hubbard stated, Maria. Believe me, I know that by now, reading all your posts since March 7th.

I just wanted to give Gizmo and his fans some additional data as related to his post which I commented on.

I do confess, that when I started writing out what I thought Hubbard had said on the matter, I did notice that IMO, what Hubbard was saying about Dianetics was not nearly as far fetched as what Hubbard had said about going OT. We had just bashed Hubbard soundly for being so remiss in his claims for OT and we had a good laugh or two with that. Then I was going over his basis for coming up with Dianetics and compared to what he wrote about OT, his writings and lectures on Dianetics seemed much more feasible. I think that at the time, 1950, they looked as if they might be a step towards improving on Freudian therapy and perhaps, a couple of unbiased university studies should have been run on early Dianetics.

Had that been done, and the results printed in scientific journals, etc. we might be better or right now, having access to such tests.

What was I to do? At the time I first read Hubbard's writings on Dianetics, they seemed feasible to me and to my surprise, they still seem somewhat feasible to me when I rehashed them in answering Gizmo. I know you do not share my feelings on this matter and I consider you a friend but I don't want to have to worry about speaking my mind just to placate a good friend.

When I am in doubt about posting something I know is going to piss off a friend, I usually just close my eyes and hit send. That practice hasn't always worked out and I have lost friends and made enemies doing that but I still feel compelled to do it. I guess it is sort of a compulsion on my part.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I wasn't in any way trying to make a stand for Hubbard. Gizmo had made some suppositions in his post which I felt were sort of scattered around various things which Hubbard actually statedI. I was just trying to clarify things for Gizmo, and anyone who tended to agree with his post, as to what Hubbard was actually referring to

I know you don't agree at all with anything which Hubbard stated, Maria. Believe me, I know that by now, reading all your posts since March 7th.

I just wanted to give Gizmo and his fans some additional data as related to his post which I commented on.

I do confess, that when I started writing out what I thought Hubbard had said on the matter, I did notice that IMO, what Hubbard was saying about Dianetics was not nearly as far fetched as what Hubbard had said about going OT. We had just bashed Hubbard soundly for being so remiss in his claims for OT and we had a good laugh or two with that. Then I was going over his basis for coming up with Dianetics and compared to what he wrote about OT, his writings and lectures on Dianetics seemed much more feasible. I think that at the time, they looked as if they might be a step for improving on Freudian therapy and perhaps, a couple of unbiased university studies should have been run on early Dianetics.

Had that been done, and the results printed in scientific journals, etc. we might be better or right now, having access to such tests.

What was I to do? At the time I first read Hubbard's writings on Dianetics, they seemed feasible to me and to my surprise, the still seems somewhat feasible to me when I rehashed them in answering Gizmo. I know you do not share my feelings on this matter and I consider you a friend but I don't want to have to worry about speaking my mind just to placate a good friend.
When I am in doubt about posting something I know is going to piss off a friend, I usually just close my eyes and hit send. That practice hasn't always worked out and I have lost friends and made enemies doing that but I still feel compelled to do it. I guess it is sort of a compulsion on my part.
Lakey

I understand. It is also feasible that a squirrel (the animal not the SP) might hold a pencil and look smart. Thank you for likewise understanding that for me Dianetics is vomitous and worthless. I have explained why before so I won't be a bore and repeat it. Yes, I made up a word.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey
I have ordered a used 1 cent copy of the book from amazon in order to be able to respond. I am leery of responding if I have a different frame of reference; that is, if I have not read the book you are citing and yet am asked to respond. So expect an answer to this post in about a week, once I can read Gardner's book on relativity. Sorry for the lag! The good news is that the book is on its way. Yes, I could go by my gut and respond. I already was tempted based on a certain line of thinking. But I decided to grant your post more attention. So on this post, see you in a week or so..... and I hope my response is worth it. And I hope Gardner is not over my head. I am not a physicist by any means. I do my best to understand basics while always gravitating to philosophy and literature and art.

I also had to order a new copy of Einstein's train book from 1916 as I had lunch with a friend who was interested in reading it and I gave it to her. Before I finished reading the last two chapters!

Oh great, Maria, I have owned that book for a good 30 years or more. It is written for the general public, you are much more informed on the subject already than the average reader and you will have no problem reading and understanding that book. The illustrations in it are fantastic.

The book even has a little poem in it:

There was a lady, Miss Bright
Who could travel faster than light.
She left one day in a relative way
and returned the previous night!

You are going to love that book, if you like it as much as I think you will. Martin Gardner wrote extensive books on puzzle math and paradoxes in the 1960's and he also reviewed DIantetics around 1951 and wrote up a chapter or two on it in a magazine or in one of his puzzle books. You will be pleased to note that Gardner called Dianetics a fraud right from the beginning and thoroughly debunks the whole subject. I believe you can Google Martin Gardner's evaluation of Dianetics and read it free on the internet. Gardner has a lead in story on Einstein's train thought experiment which leads right into the portion of the book which I cited in my post. All the action starts on page 43.

Looking forward to you response in a week or so.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

For me, Plato's cosmology has zero correlation to anything Ron did or thought. I tried to make a correlation, but it was a pretzel. Plato's universe has no time because it is made of forms. Forms are not made of matter. They are immaterial. Thus no time. Time is an illusion. Time contains pictures and the pictures themselves (even the physical world) are illusions for Plato. But pictures and time have nothing to do with reality (forms). Forms have nothing to do with pictures because pictures would also fit the definition of matter.

So maybe that helps. The reactive mind is made of pictures, regardless of whether we admit that the whole is related to time. The reactive mind does not exist. Has nothing to do with Reality. So living one's life trying to great rid of nothing is sort of like how Plato describes life on this ball called earth: an illusion. Not real. Pictures are unreal = made of time and matter. Matter and time are unreal = pictures. Only forms are real for Plato. As I said, Plato's philosophy is wrong quite often so don't blame me for spelling it out. Plato would just view the reactive mind concept as words humans tell themselves. Notes and thoughts. Matter.




In the world of pretzels and strait jackets, of course the reactive mind is real.

If Hubbard had stopped at the point of saying something modest like humans can create scenarios in their minds, and sometimes they can make such scenarios come into reality for others. Then he'd be in less trouble. Or if he said, we can shift how we feel, change the position from which we view something, that would also be more modest and better than 'as-ising' which concept suggests a violation of physics.

I can't answer more since what I have just said is my view of the entire subject. I've already become extremely boring talking about this. Getting too long-winded etc. There are no other details I can finesse on this one. (And all of this is just my opinion so no harm done if you or someone else wants to disagree.) But my question is, why stop at one spiritual dimension? Why not an infinity of them? Why just the couple physical + spiritual world? Why not multiple parallel universes? Why the hierarchical setup where there are two worlds and one is superior to the other, i.e., the spiritual world trumps the material? Why not lots of worlds that are different without one world being able to lord over another? the Theta universe BS is just BS as far as I can tell.

In a physics where nothing can be created or destroyed, it's hard really to buy into banks that can be as-ised. It sounds like something Hubbard dreamed up in third grade.

Yikes, I asked you in a post here if Plato's universe of pictures had energy or matter and you replied that they had both energy and matter. That is what I predicated my whole post on, that info which you gave me when you responded. Go double check it out.

Now you tell me that his pictures had no matter or energy. If that is so, then just throw out my hold post.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yikes, I asked you in a post here if Plato's universe of pictures had energy or matter and you replied that they had both energy and matter. That is what I predicated my whole post on, that info which you gave me when you responded. Go double check it out.

Now you tell me that his pictures had no matter or energy. If that is so, then just throw out my hold post.
Lakey

No, pictures can have energy and matter. But matter and energy are unreal for Plato.

Here are things that are not real for Plato:

pictures (including reactive mind if he would have thought of that, which he did not!)
chairs
our bodies
thoughts (and thought-images)
the planet
the sun
a painting
electricity
all material things
cells, atoms, etc.

here is what is real for Plato:

The forms (the forms of being)
The Good beyond being


In my last post I said pictures are made of matter and energy. I didn't say that pictures could not exist that might be free of matter and energy, like thought-forms. But in that case, those pictures would ALSO be unreal.

Reality is archetype and form. Not individual examples. Note - as an existentialist I disagree with Plato on this.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Example of the forms:

(all capital absolute and immaterial)

Truth
Beauty
Justice (Ethics)
Body (as archetype)
Number
Tall
Short (as archetype not specific)
Odd
Even
Love
Eros
Human
Soul
Ant (as archetype not an actual ant ever!)

Ideas/Forms/Archetypes/Universal = Real

Eros would also be a god. Eros might have a personification in a god for Plato.
But also is a principle.

Material things just share in these principles, they do not contain it.


We share in the form Beauty. Plato never explains how the Beauty form
translates into a physical example.

For Plato as in most traditions since, including Scn, the body is EVIL and inferior to Soul (Spirit).
Plotinus sort of clarifies these 'issues' later on.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

HA! Lakey, you need less than 20K posts to reach the goal line. Get to work, we have to stop being downstat and start posting!!!!

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[video=youtube;DED812HKWyM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DED812HKWyM[/video]

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[video=youtube;GJY8jJkDoMY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJY8jJkDoMY[/video]